Q(433.19) Can a major conversion capable conversion facility do a four point major conversion as well as one point worth of minor conversions?

The second part of that sentence does not make this clear if you can or cannot.

By Jason E. Schaff (Jschaff297061) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 04:51 am: Edit

(wrong topic - moved)

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 08:19 am: Edit

Q539.71 How many theater transports can an empire build and/or convert in a turn under (539.71)?

---

Quote:

(539.71) PRODUCTION: As is provided by the Ship Information Table, theater transports can be substituted for or converted from destroyers or frigates as needed.

---

By Thomas Mathews (Turtle) on Thursday, June 20, 2013 - 02:27 pm: Edit

Thanks Chuck, I missed the as needed at the end of the rule.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 09:34 pm: Edit

Chuck,

---

Quote:

A starbase or minor conversion facility capable of a minor conversions may do ONE minor conversion of any cost, or it may do up to 3 EP of conversions of any type, but not both.

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 09:38 pm: Edit

There are minor conversions that cost more than three points. It can do one of those as the 'any cost' conversion.

It could not do one of those and any other conversion at the same time.

By Garth L. Getgen (Sgt_G) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 09:50 pm: Edit

Really? I thought anything over three points is a major conversion, per (433.12). Even if so, I think there should be a better way of wording the rule.

[edit] Now I see it. It's on the SIT. By the way, the Fed SIT is missing the note saying what the down-arrow symbol means.


Garth L. Getgen

By Mike Curtis (Fear) on Sunday, June 23, 2013 - 11:26 pm: Edit

This is discussion and does not belong here...

By George Duffy (Sentinal) on Monday, June 24, 2013 - 11:29 pm: Edit

Can a Neo-Tholian command module be used as a pinning unit?

Can a Tholian police cutter be used as a pinning unit?

By Pete DiMitri (Petercool) on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 05:17 am: Edit

Wyn Trade

(449.133) - The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can receive them (at least a partial grid).

Question: this doesn't seem to indicate that the EPs need to be picked up or dropped off at the Capital. Does that mean they can be picked up and dropped off at any supply point?

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 - 10:32 am: Edit

Pete this is from the Q&A Archive: (not sure if it helps)

Tim Losberg: WYN trading question.

Rule (449.133) The rules on transporting EPs require them to be picked up from somewhere that has them (at least a partial grid) and deliver them to somewhere that can receive them (at least a partial grid)....

Does this mean that the tug taking the EP's out of the cluster need only stop at any base in the grid or does it still need to go to the Capital to drop off the EP's from the cluster?

(NICK) ANSWER: It could drop them at any grid (but that would make a satellite stockpile if not the capital). If you want the cash to go into your treasury, you need to bring it all they way to the capital.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 02:48 pm: Edit

Q(308.1112) Can the pursuing player, in a single combat round during pursuit, target an outer crippled escort with one directed damage attack and subsequently use directed damage upon the next inner crippled escort with a second directed damage attack - without attacking the group as a whole?

Here is the rule:

(308.1112) Each escort could be crippled and/or destroyed, but only one escort can be attacked by these rules in each Combat Round and the smallest escort MUST be the one attacked as it is the only one that can be attacked.

The pursued player cites the rule as stating that only one escort can be damaged per *combat round*, and thus the ability to perform multiple directed damage attacks during pursuit is irrelevant. The pursuing player asserts otherwise (I believe under the premise that multiple directed damage attacks during pursuit is the more specific rule).

Thank you in advance for your fast answer.

---

Quote:

(307.41) COMBAT: The final Combat Round is fought normally
(and still in the Battle Hex). The pursuing player may designate
one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target
for Directed Damage, and use the special ability of a mauler
if there is one in the pursuing force in resolving this attack. Only
crippled ships can be targeted in this way.

---

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 08:12 pm: Edit

One addition, one can still target one group (to either cripple the group or destroy it)...

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 08:43 pm: Edit

Q308.1112 Follow Up.

Thank you for the quick answer. I have a follow up question, in that I'm still not sure whether or not the opponent is allowed to use directed damage during a pursuit battle to attack multiple crippled escorts of a single carrier group, without attacking the carrier or other escorts within the carrier group.

Example: Opponent sees a crippled Kzinti carrier group consisting of {CVS,CLE,EFF} available for directed damage during pursuit. The Kzinti player also fields many other crippled units and 3 non-crippled units. The Coalition player scores 18 damage points. He cannot direct kill the entire carrier group, as to do so would require 2*(5+3+2)=20 damage points. So, opponent would like to use directed damage to kill both the crippled CLE and the crippled EFF that are part of that one carrier group.

I say this action is not correct, as you can either 1) attack the outer escort or 2) attack the whole group at once. You can't target multiple crippled escorts of the same CV group without attacking the whole group, even when on pursuit, as GEDS forbids you from doing so. On the other hand, opponent says he can do 3) attack both crippled escorts. For support he cites the rule allowing the pursuer using directed damage against multiple crippled units during pursuit.

Clarification requested on whether "3)" is an available option for the opponent, or whether only "1)" or "2)" are available options for him (with respect to the quoted CV group above only - ignore the other crippled units he could kill with directed damage).

Thank you in advance for clarifying.

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 10:56 pm: Edit

The text of this specific rule (307.41) is clear: "The pursuing player may designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for Directed Damage".

Item (3) is most correct but...

(A) any crippled outer escorts will benefit from any escort bonuses entitled to them first then;

(B) an attack on a crippled inner escort will benefit on any remaining escorts second entitled to them, then;

(C) add them up to determine the overall damage for the combined crippled pursuit attack.

In no way can uncrippled ships be targeted as part of this combined crippled attack in pursuit.

FEDS SENDS

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 10:24 am: Edit

Thank you again for a quick ruling. It appears that 307.41 (directing on cripples during pursuit) is more specific than 308.1112 (must attack smallest escort first).

FEDS: Ted, I corrected my answer.

By Ted Fay (Catwhoeatsphoto) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 03:36 pm: Edit

I apologize for being dense, but I have another follow up question. The ruling (as corrected) appears to allow the pursuing player to direct on *both* crippled and uncrippled escorts of a pursued carrier group using the same directed damage attack? Please confirm this example based on the ruling.

A Kzinti carrier group is in pursuit combat (along with other Zin ships) as the pursued force. A Klingon force is pursuing. The Zin group consists of CV (not crippled), CLE (not crippled) [CLE] (crippled), and EFF (not crippled).

The Klingon player generates 22 damage points on pursuit.

Based on portion (A) of the ruling, the Klingon player may do the following using rule 307.41:

-First direct cripple the outer EFF. This costs 4*2=8 (base) +3 (escort bonus for 3 escorts) = 11 damage points. Note I said 3 escorts, not two, since the crippled escort is not the target of the attack, so 308.1111 is not invoked and the outer escort gets the benefit of all 3 escorts.

The Klingon player then kills the EFF as part of the same directed attack. This action costs 2*2=4 damage points (15 used so far). As part of the same 307.41 directed damage attack the Klingon player now kills the next outer CLE. This action costs 3*2=6 damage points, but under portion (B) of the ruling the "inner" crippled escorts benefits from the remaining escort, so it takes 1 more damage point (7 total) to kill the CLE. I say only 1 more damage point because 308.1111 says the crippled CLE doesn't get the escort bonus, but under portion (B) of the ruling the crippled escort does get the benefit of the remaining uncrippled CLE in the group.

Based on portion (C) of the ruling, the total damage points used is 11+4+7=22 damage points (exactly what the Klingon player has generated). The net result is that the EFF and CLE are dead.

If I am correct, I further request confirmation of the ruling from ADB as this procedure I think constitutes a rule change from rule 307.41.

Rule 307.41 allows you to attack one or more more *crippled* ships (per the quote provided in the above ruling). However, the ruling now allows the pursuing player to lump *uncrippled* ships with the crippled ships, so long as all such ships are part of the same carrier group. But 307.41 is restricted to crippled ships as a single target for directed damage, so it at least seems to me that a rule change has taken place.

This rule change will make it possible to go after cripples that are part of inner escorts carrier groups. It is common practice for both Coalition and Alliance players (mostly Alliance) to cripple an inner escort and then leave the battle. Pursuit is discouraged (in my older games, prior to this ruling) because it was impossible to kill the inner crippled unit. Now, however, the inner crippled unit *and* the outer escort are both vulnerable under ruling.

It is difficult to ascertain the impact of this ruling, but it seems tho result in more escort deaths, maybe for the Alliance. Perhaps this is a good result, I don't know.

Thanks for clarifying again and being patient with my follow up questions and confirmation request.

By Stewart W Frazier (Frazikar2) on Friday, June 28, 2013 - 08:30 pm: Edit

Hmmmmmm, thimk the problem is the interaction between carrier groups and cripples during pursuit.

This is a question of which (pursuit+cripple grouping / carrier grouping) has priority.

Using the example (CV+CLE+cle+EFF), means that if carrier grouping has priority then it's crippling the whole group (no escort bonus) for 20 [needing 26 more to destroy the group] or crippling/destroying smallest escort (w/ bonus) for 11 (cripple) or 15 (destroy), if pursuit has priority then the Klingon could add the 'cle' to other cripples in the battle.

By Paul Howard (Raven) on Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 04:55 am: Edit

Sorry - may be being thick - so not sure if this is an Appeal or a Clarification.


From Ted's Question -
3) attack both crippled escorts

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Thursday, June 27, 2013 - 10:56 pm: Edit


The text of this specific rule (307.41) is clear: "The pursuing player may designate one or more crippled ships and declare them to be a single target for Directed Damage".

Item (3) is most correct but...

(A) any crippled outer escorts will benefit from any escort bonuses entitled to them first then;

(B) an attack on a crippled inner escort will benefit on any remaining escorts second entitled to them, then;

(C) add them up to determine the overall damage for the combined crippled pursuit attack.

In no way can uncrippled ships be targeted as part of this combined crippled attack in pursuit.

FEDS SENDS

Three points

308.111 - Only uncrippled Escorts get the +1 bonus when being targeted

307.41 v 308.1112 (+308.11) Which specific rule takes priority (as normally, a specific rule trumnps a general rule.

As far as I was aware - 308 trumps everything (bar SFG's) (as 308 is a Specific Rule - and the 307 rule is a general rule for persuit) - i.e. each combat round a Carrier Group can either be targeted as a Group - or the Outer escort.

So, although 307.41 allows multiple cripples to be targted - any crippled inner escort is still protected by any outer escorts - be they crippled or uncrippled.

Lastly, if the outer Escort is uncrippled - and an inner Escort is crippled - even in persuit - only the Outer Escort can be directed on - as 307.41 explicitly states only crippled ships can be designated a the single 'directed damage' attack.

(Assuming designating of ships for targeting is simultanous - not consecutive).

An examples will hopefully clarify the question/appeal

Persued forces has the following force

DN
CC
CD
BC
CV+cle+eff
CV+cle+FKE
ff

As the persuer (ignoring SFG's), with sufficent damage points, I can select on one (and only one) of the following options

1) Direct on any Fighters present
2) Direct on a single carrier group
3) Direct on the eff and ff (via 307.41)
4) Direct on a single legal crippled ship (i.e. in the above example, the eff or ff)
5) Direct on one from the DN, CC, CD, BC or FKE
6) No Directing

(Not relevant for the example, but if there was other crippled ships, outside the battle force (and only 3 uncrippled ships in the battleforce) - they could also be targeted under option 3 or 4.

In other words, I beleive, the only way to kill the cle's - is to kill the group - but Chucks and comments and the further comments seem to make it possible to kill either the eff or FKE - and a cle.

Thanks

Paul

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 06:25 am: Edit

(302.742) SLOW UNITS

Section C says that if you have more than one slow unit, they all participate in battle.

My question is, if you have more slow units than fit into a legal battle force (let us say 10, when the command rating of the flagship is 6), how do you proceed?

My second question is, if there are more than 3 squadrons of attrition units on the slow units that are required to be in the battle force, how is this handed?

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 11:44 am: Edit

FEDS requests you please check your F&E2KX references because your question with reference you cited makes no sense.

---

Quote:

C: If the slow unit(s) survive the battle, they retreat one hex
under the same rules as other units. (FRDs which are not being
towed cannot retreat and would be destroyed if there are enemy
units remaining in the Battle Hex or which conducted a pursuit.)

---

By Richard B. Eitzen (Rbeitzen) on Saturday, June 29, 2013 - 12:30 pm: Edit

Excuse me, I meant Section D. I apologize for the error.

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Tuesday, July 02, 2013 - 11:13 pm: Edit

Rule 446.11 Procedure (to develop a Colony):
...The hex must not have (or be adjacent to a hex containing) any other planet or colony of any type...

Would a hex adjacent to an off-map containing planets or colonies be considered 'off limits' for colonial development under this rule? The off-map areas could possess planets far away or close to the on-map hexes along the edge.

(I did note 446.15 Building a colony 1 per every discovered 5 provinces in the off-map but this assumes these new provinces are likely far away from the map edge.)

By Chuck Strong (Raider) on Wednesday, July 03, 2013 - 10:38 am: Edit

Only on-map hexes are used to determine eligibility for colony development and placement; there is no provision in the rule that limits placement of a colony adjacent to an off-map region.

FEDS SENDS

By Lawrence Bergen (Lar) on Thursday, July 04, 2013 - 07:11 am: Edit

Thank you. Next Question.

Can the Klingons unconvert the D7N on T1?
What happens to the D7? Is it placed back into the Home Fleet (unreleased because it no longer satisfies rule 600.35)?

As for the DIP coming off of the D7N in the un-conversion; Do they count against the Klingons as producing a DIP or can they still produce one on the same turn (T1)?